'The Comet Man'

'The Comet Man'

William Usherwood (1821 - 1915)

“William Usherwood, a commercial photographer from Dorking, Surrey took the first ever photograph of a comet when he photographed Donati’s comet from Walton Common on the 27^th September 1858, beating George Bond from Harvard Observatory by a night! Unfortunately, the picture taken by Usherwood has been lost.”

Comet

In the late summer of 1858 a great Comet appeared which was so bright it could easily be seen in broad daylight; people were awed by it, artists painted it and the great astronomers of the day tried to photograph it. The famous Astrophotographer, Warren de La Rue attempted to capture it and failed. George Phillips Bond, the son of the Director of the Harvard College Observatory, even succeeded in photographing it on the 28^th September of that year. Although he would later find out that he was beaten to it – by a single day, and therefore lost his claim of being the first person ever to photograph a Comet.  

So which of the great observatories with their large telescopes claimed this remarkable feat as theirs: Greenwich, Berlin, Paris or St. Petersburg? , and who was the astronomer whose name would live forever in the annals of the History of Photography - George Airy, the Astronomer Royal; or Johann Galle, the discoverer of the Planet Neptune; or Giovanni Battista Donati, the comet’s discoverer?

It was none of them!

The honour went in fact to - William Usherwood, an unknown commercial photographer from Dorking, Surrey, England. Yet his name like the object he photographed shone brightly for a while, before disappearing into the dark depths of space and time. So why did William Usherwood, with the aid of the camera he used for photographing babies and weddings succeed; whilst Bond with the ‘Great Harvard’ Refractor at his disposal only managed a photograph of the comet, which he himself admitted was poor and a day too late?

Let us now tell William Usherwood’s story, which begins not on Walton Common where he captured the light of an object which man had not seen since the time before Rome ruled the known world; or at Dorking where he lived, but in the streets of London where he was born.

St. Marylebone

William Usherwood was born on the 31^st August 1821 in the Parish of St. Marylebone, then in the City of Westminster; but which is now lost in the urban sprawl of the London metropolis. His father was John Hughes Usherwood, a skilled artisan who earned his living in the manufacture of wallpaper as a paper stainer. With wife Mary (nee Lacey) they bore six children five of whom survived into adulthood; William being the second born.

Very little is known of his early life or education. The first record of him after is birth is when he appears as a 17 year old in the 1841 Census living in Islington in the household of John Ashley, a Relieving Office, his wife Matilda and their son Edward, a Cabinet Maker. He appears to have had no occupation. He gives his age as 17 when in fact he was 19. The giving of false and misleading information is something William Usherwood did throughout his life. In future Census returns he never gave the same information twice and always gave a wrong age which varied from one decade to the next.

By the time of the 1851 Census he was 28 years old (incorrect) living at No. 95 Mary Street, near London’s Regents Park, and employed as a Portrait and Miniature Painter, born in Middlesex (correct). This was the first clue to the direction in life William Usherwood was to take and the career he would follow. It is quite likely that William’s choice of career was influenced to some extent by his father. The work of a Paper Stainer required a fair degree of artistic flair and knowhow to create the patterns on the wallpapers of the early decades of the 19^th Century.

William Usherwood’s Baptism Entry St. Marylebone, 1821

 

St. Marylebone Church in 1827, William Usherwood was baptized here in 1821

 

Mary Street (middle right), Regents Park, London 1851

Victorian Wallpaper Patterns c1830 - 1850

 

During the early 1850s Photography was still a very new art form. It had only been just over a decade since Francois Arago first revealed to the world the remarkable work of Louis Daguerre. As a consequence the number of people employed as fulltime professional photographers was small - but growing rapidly. Many others like William Usherwood would later change from being artists or sculptors to the new media of Photography.

On the 25^th October 1853 the then 32 year old (correct age!) portrait and miniature painter married Amelia Ann Westbrook, the daughter of James Westbrook, a Coach Painter.

Marriage of William Usherwood and Amelia Ann Westbrook, 1853

Shortly after his marriage William Usherwood moved to Walton Heath (Common), near to the village of Walton-on-the Hill in Surrey.

At Walton-on-the-Hill, William Usherwood set up in business as a Miniature Painter. For the next few years William worked at his trade, began to learn the new art of photography, and to bring up a large family. As the summer of 1858 approached William Usherwood’s destiny and Donati’s Comet awaited him.

Walton Heath, Walton-on-the-Hill, Surrey, 1927

 

Giovanni Battista Donati

One night in the October of 1858 the British born author Houston Stewart Chamberlain, then just three years old looked out of a window and saw the ‘Great Comet’. Like millions of others around the world, It created an impression they would remember for the rest of their lives.

He later wrote the following account of the experience:

“I will always be grateful that fate has allowed me to witness the comet of 1858. I had just turned three years old, as this meteor, discovered in June, approached in September and filled a width of 64 degrees of the dark autumn sky in October with its mild and nevertheless radiating gloss — for my ‘short-sighted’ eye like a living and pulsating heart. Even today, after nearly 60 years, I can still remember the comet, as if I had seen it only yesterday; I could draw an exact map of the room with three windows, at which left one I was lifted on a chair every evening before I went to sleep, to look at the phenomenon in the sky, and I remember the pain I felt inside, when after watching a while — my small face stuck to the windowpanes — the maid came to bring me to bed. Never again there appeared such an enchanting light-phenomenon out of the darkness of the infinite universe that can be compared with the comet of 1858; the senses of he who witnessed it with a receptive soul will be opened forever for the unexpected miracles that contradict everyday life. My whole life long this radiating star was to me as a symbol of the inexhaustible possibilities of nature“

Before the invention of the telescope, comets seemed to appear out of nowhere in the sky and gradually vanish out of sight. They were usually considered bad omens of deaths of kings or noble men, or coming catastrophes, or even interpreted as attacks by heavenly beings against terrestrial inhabitants. From ancient sources, such as Chinese oracle bones, it is known that their appearances have been noticed by humans for millennia. Some authorities interpret references to "falling stars" in Gilgamesh, the Book of Revelation and the Book of Enoch as references to comets, or possibly bolides.

On the night of the 2^nd June 1858 the Italian astronomer Giovanni Battista Donati was observing the heavens from the Florence Observatory. In the sky that night near to the border between the constellations of Cancer (Crab) and Leo (Lion), he saw a ‘small nebulosity of 3’ in diameter’ through the eyepiece of his telescope, in a position where no known star or nebulae was to be found.

Giovanni Battista Donati (1826 – 1873)

 

Subsequent observation over the course of a few hours showed its true nature – it was a new comet. The discovery was quickly communicated within the worldwide astronomical community. An orbit was soon calculated and it became clear that this was a long period comet which had last appeared some ninety or so years before the birth of Christ.

Over the course of the next few months astronomers around the world observed and measured its progress with great interest. One of them the American Astronomer, Benjamin Apthorp Gould (1824 – 1896) wrote a detailed account in the ‘Astronomical Journal’ of the progress of the Comet from ‘small nebulosity of 3’ in diameter’ to its final status as the ‘Great Comet of 1858’.

 

The following is an extract from Gould’s paper:

 

June. At the time of the first detection of the comet by Mr. DONATI, June 2, he describes it as a small nebulosity about 3' in diameter, and of uniform brightness. This appearance continued until the month of August, in the course of which a sensible condensation of the light toward the center became manifest, though not sufficiently definite to be called a nucleus.

 

September 3. The comet, according to Mr. DONATI, first became visible to the naked eye ; and with the aid of low powers, a tolerably defined nucleus was perceptible, having a mild light, and being elongated in a direction perpendicular to the tail, which was about 2° long. Under high powers, the nucleus almost disappeared. After this date, the diameter of this supposed nucleus went on decreasing, and its form, at first elliptic, was modified : it became more and more sharply defined; its light grew more brilliant, and the surrounding nebulosity seemed to dilate.

 

........

 

September 4. The comet was first seen at Albany with the naked eye, the weather having been cloudy since August 24. Mr. SEARLE estimated the appearance as being like that of a star of the third magnitude, with a very slight tail.

 

September 25. At 4.30 a.m. the envelope which CHACORNAC had seen so near the nucleus on the 23d, had become separated from it by a considerable interval, and a fifth envelope was seen just detaching itself. Traces of polarization were also perceptible to him. Between this date and October 8, two more envelopes, the sixth and seventh according to CHACORNAC, were thrown off from the nucleus; the sixth being quite brilliant, and showing light clearly polarized. The tail was estimated by Mr. LOGAN, of Sacramento, as 8° or 9° in length.

 

September 26. The tail, according to Mr. LOGAN, was from 10° to 11° long.

 

September 28. By the rotation of a Nicoll's prism placed in the focus of the great telescope, Mr. CHACORNAC found that great variations in the light could be produced; the minimum being when the small diameter, and the maximum when the large diameter, of the prism was parallel to the axis of the tail. The tail, according to Mr. LOGAN, was 17° or 18° long.

 

.....

October 9. Mr. TOOMER, in Albany, estimated the length of the tail as 30°, and the maximum breadth as 10°. Mr. SEARLE made the length to be 33°, but called this a poor estimate. Mr. THOMAS M. LOGAN, in Sacramento, California, estimated the length at 30°.

October 10. Mr. SEARLE, at the Dudley Observatory, noticed not only that the nucleus was eccentric in reference to the coma, but also that the intense brilliancy from the nucleus extended about twice as far on the northern as on the southern side. The length of the main portion of the tail, according to his estimate, was 37°: one of the faint branches, however, extended to the length of 43°. The breadth at delta serpentis was 40°, the bright portion tapering from that point to the extremity, where the breadth, including faint branches, was roughly estimated at 10°.

The above account clearly shows that Comet Donati was a truly great comet easily visible to the naked eye with a magnificent tail that grew to as large as 40^o across - as was depicted in many artists’ drawings and paintings of the day.

Donati’s Comet from an engraving of 1858

Harvard

If a sweepstake had have been held as to who would photograph Donati’s Comet first, then the heavy betting and firm favourite would have without doubt been on Harvard College Observatory. The Observatory in 1858 under its Director William Cranch Bond (1789 – 1859) and his son George Phillips Bond (1825 – 1865) had an excellent track record in Astrophotography. They had the necessary experience, the expertise and in the Observatory’s 15” Refractor – the equipment (or so it seemed!).

William Cranch Bond in the September of 1858 was nearly 70 years old and in poor health, so it was left to his son George Bond to take up the challenge of being the first person to image a Comet and Donati’s was his target.

Comet Donati fascinated George Bond and he spent a great amount of time studying it and in writing up his findings. This is evident by his 558 page report he compiled entitled - ‘Account of the Great Comet of 1858’.

‘Great Harvard’ 15” Refractor c1847

 

In the introduction to his account Bond made his intentions and reasons for studying Donati’s Comet very clear, he wrote the following:

“Few departments of astronomy have been pursued -with greater industry and success, or have participated more fully* in the general advance of the science, than the investigation of the motions of comets in our system. Nothing which labor and skill can supply has been wanting to secure exactness in the determination of their places in the heavens, and in the reduction of the elements directly dependent upon observation to a form suitable for theoretical discussion. The
development of the theory of their motions has also been carried to a high degree of perfection, and has furnished methods of calculation, by which their courses are represented and predicted with a degree of accuracy only limited by
the necessary uncertainties of the observed positions.

When, however, the physical organization of comets becomes the special object of inquiry, and the attention is directed to almost any of their characteristics distinguishable from the simple motion of their centres of gravity about the Sun, we find an extensive field of research which has scarcely yet been entered upon. Of the laws which govern the mysterious evolutions of comets, we know little beyond the uncertain information suggested by conjecture and analogy; we are still at a loss to account for some of the simplest features of their aspect, and have not even arrived at a clear and definite statement of the facts of their phenomena which should be subjected to theoretical discussion.”

It was clear that Bond’s main intention to was study the Comet and not to photograph it. In Bond's account of Donati’s Comet of 1858, his only comment relating to photography was:

 "On the 28th, the image of the nucleus in the focus of the large refractor afforded distinct photographic action, but the surrounding luminosity was not intense enough to form a picture".

 He later reported that:

 "An attempt was made to photograph the image of the Comet in the focus of the Great Refractor, but only the nucleus and a little nebulosity 15" in diameter acted on the plate in an exposure of six minutes".

The record of Bond’s attempt to photograph Donati’s Comet on the night of the 28^th September 1858 has survived in his notebook entry for that date. In it he states that three plates were taken which he referred to as Plates I, II and III.

Plate III had the longest exposure of six minutes and Bond notes:

“Think this took. On examination with microscope this plate exhibits an undoubted image of 15” diam. & Oval. Sky not quite clear & clouded suddenly”.

It is interesting to note that the size of the head of the comet in Bond’s photograph was only 15” across – which meant very little of the comet was captured, given the fact that it actually covered a considerable area of sky many degree across. A contemporary painting of the Comet shows it next to the constellation of Ursa Major (i.e. the ‘Great Bear’ or ‘Plough’), and has an angular size greater than the constellation itself, i.e. over 25 degrees. This is confirmed by the observations reported in Gould’s paper of 1858.

Remarkably Bond's Plate III has survived and is to be found at the Harvard College Observatory in its Plate Stacks. In the middle of the photograph is a ball of grains representing the comet; only the head is visible. The tail of the comet is not apparent in his six minute exposure. Bond’s attempt at imaging Comet Donati was without doubt a complete failure.

Bond’s horse had fallen and no clear winner was yet in sight.

George Bond’s Notebook Entry for 28^th September 1858

 

Donati’s Comet drawn by George Phillips Bond, 1858

 

Walton Common

It is not hard to understand why William Usherwood should find himself on Walton Heath (Common) in the late September of 1858. The ‘Great Comet’ was clearly visible in broad daylight as it neared its closest approach to the Sun. It would have been the talking point on everyone’s lips in the streets, the pubs and shops of Walton-on-the-Hill where he lived. It was the ideal opportunity for William Usherwood to obtain an unusual and once in a lifetime photograph. In all likelihood his family and customers would have urged him on.

Walton Common was the perfect location to capture the Comet. It was high up, being some several hundred feet above sea level, provided unobstructed views of the sky, and was very also close to Usherwood’s home. Walton Common is an area of heath land which lies close to the village of Walton-on-the-Hill, and is some 10 km (6 miles) Northeast of Dorking.  The exact location of where he took his photograph is not known.

In the official History of the Royal Astronomical Society, E. H. Grove-Hills reported reported rather begrudglingly in 1923 that:

"The only recorded photograph is one taken by Mr. Usherwood on Walton Common with a stationary camera furnished with a portrait lens of short focus.... We must content ourselves with noting the fact that Mr. Usherwood's was the first photograph taken of a comet.”

Walton Heath in 1874 Ordnance Survey Map

Modern Ordnance Survey Map of Walton Heath (Common)

This report echoes the only published contemporary reference to Mr. Usherwood, from the Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1859:

“Although Mr. De La Rue was unsuccessful in producing an impression of the comet with his telescope of 10 feet focal length, Mr. Usherwood, an artist residing on Walton Common, succeeded in obtaining, in 7 seconds, a good negative with a portrait lens of short focus. The camera was stationary, hence the image is somewhat imperfect, nevertheless it bears enlargement of four times tolerably well. Mr. Usherwood's residence is situated about 700 feet above the sea level, and it is possible that his success is in some degree attributable to this circumstance, but is chiefly due to the large area of the portrait lens and the relative shortness of its focal distance. So far as the Council has been informed this is the only instance of a photograph of Donati's comet having been obtained.”

So the famous pioneer of Astrophotography Warren de La Rue had tried also and failed, his horse had gone lame and was out of the running.

An important discussion relevant to technical aspects of comet photography is found in the correspondence between George Bond and the well-known British amateur astronomer Richard C. Carrington. In a letter that Bond wrote to
Carrington on 4 April 1858 on other matters, he mentioned:

"We obtained a photograph of the Comet on Sept. 28th. On Oct 5th it was visible in the daytime."

Carrington later wrote on 26 May 1859:

"Herewith I send a copy of Usherwood's photograph of Donati's Comet, same size as the original on plate, of which he has obliged me with 4 or 5 copies for distribution."

No mention is made of the date of the photograph, and indeed Bond responded by requesting the date. Writing to Carrington on 11 June 1858, Bond replied:

“I am so much interested in the photograph which you had the kindness to send that I cannot help sitting down at once to thank you for the favor.

Here is a very singular fact. The camera lens, with its short focus, affords a strong image of the nebulosity of the tail at a point where the intensity of the light was probably a thousand times less than that of the nucleus. And this, too, in seven seconds.... Whereas, with an object glass of probably eight or ten times the area, we barely obtained an impression of the nucleus itself in 360 seconds on the following day, September 28.”

There is nothing to tell us why Bond gave priority to Usherwood by one day. Perhaps something was written on the photograph itself.

On the next pages, Bond notes:

“I have long thought that there was a kind of sympathy in the photographic action light acting at one point rendering neighboring points more sensitive and that possibly a star image slightly out of focus might 'take' quicker than when reduced to a minimum area. If this theory be true then a poor telescope would be better than a good one, which would be introducing a new principle in practical astronomy.”

 Bond's concluding postscript, is very interesting:

"I take the liberty of enclosing two notes with the request that you will forward them. Mr. Usherwood's address I do not know. I have written to him for particulars about the photograph.”

The Harvard University Archives contains not only a copy of Bond's letter to Usherwood written on 11 June 1859, but also, wonderfully, Usherwood's reply, which includes new information about the photograph and the camera that took
it.  The form of address used by Bond, "— Underwood Esq.", shows that he did not know Usherwood's first name.

“Mr. Carrington, Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society, has had the kindness to forward to me a copy of the photograph of the comet taken by you in Sept. last. It has interested me so much that I take the liberty of addressing you for some further particulars respecting it. Will you have the kindness to inform me of the size of the camera, its aperture & focal length, the time of exposure, the date when the picture was taken? Is the copy of the same size with the original and lastly was there any particularity in the preparation of the plates? By an answer to the above you will greatly oblige...”

Usherwood replied with the following details:

“I read your letter of Mr. Carrington & in reply I beg to state that the Plate sent to you by Mr. C is a copy the same size with the original negative my camera is for plates nine inch square Lens three & a quarter inch, a Portrait Lens twelve inch focal length Time of exposure from seven to nine seconds.

The Development by Gallic acid and acetate of Lead, then the Collodion was prepared by my self. I think it was on the 27 of Sep" last I did the negative.”

So the first source we have found for the date of 27 September for Usherwood's photograph (other than Bond's remark) was Usherwood's uncertain memory, from months after the fact. Perhaps Usherwood's tentative statement of the date should make everyone question the chronology, although Bond who was known for his scientific integrity never disputed it, and must have been in possession of information that indicated he had been beaten to the post. Even if Usherwood’s photograph had been taken after Bond’s the fact remains that nobody has ever disputed that his image was a success and by inference one which had captured the comet’s magnificent tail.

Usherwood not only provides the value of the focal length but also gives a range for the exposure time from 7 to 9 seconds, instead of the 7 seconds given in the Monthly notices. His figures for focal length and objective diameter — which are obviously definitive — give f/3.7, compared with the f/2.4 that Daniel Norman calculated from Bond's assumption for unknown reasons of 12-inch focal length and 5-inch aperture.

The only contemporary reference to Usherwood's photograph in England, in the Monthly notices for 1859, did not refer to Bond's photograph. Though Bond mentioned his photograph without qualification to Carrington, he minimized its importance when writing for publication, perhaps because the image was so tiny and because no tail showed. In his magnum opus of 1862 on Donati's Comet, he mentioned his photograph in one place and Usherwood's in two places.

As Daniel Norman stated in 1938 in his article on the development of astronomical photography:

"Although it has been assumed for many years that Bond took the first photograph ever made of a comet (Donati's comet of 1858), an English commercial photographer named Usherwood actually preceded him by two days [sic], and succeeded in photographing the comet's magnificent tail, where Bond succeeded only in photographing its nucleus".

However, as the correspondence shows, not only is Norman's "two days" contradicted by Usherwood's letter, but the order of priority is itself not beyond doubt. In his article, Norman calculated, on the basis of the relative sizes and focal lengths, that not only was Usherwood's lens faster but also he must have had a much more sensitive Collodion plate. The knowledge that Usherwood's lens was not in fact as fast as Norman thought strengthens that conclusion. But since an f/3.7 lens is easier to produce than an f/2.4 lens, it may be easier to understand the answer to Norman's conundrum:

"There remains, however, the mystery of where Usherwood obtained a photographic lens of so large an aperture and so small a focal ratio at that early date. Did he make it himself?"

 Because of its larger focal ratio, the lens that Usherwood actually had was not as difficult to obtain as the lens Norman believed him to have had.

Dorking

Just like Comet Donati, William Usherwood disappeared from the spotlight and was forgotten by the world. In about 1861 after the ‘Great Comet’ had gone back into the depths of space from whence it came, William Usherwood moved from his home at Walton Heath to the nearby town of Dorking. He seems to have been totally unaware of the legacy he had created for himself and the brief ruffling of feathers and egos he had caused in the Astronomical hierarchy.

By the time of the 1861 Census we find him living at Falkland Road in Dorking working primarily as a Miniature Painter. He was obviously still not confident enough to earn his living from photography alone. He certainly had the ability to do so as demonstrated from his success in photographing Donati’s Comet and the technical knowhow he showed in his communications with George Phillips Bond of Harvard.

He also it seems enjoyed a good deal of success as a ‘miniaturist’ if a newspaper article which appeared in 1913 is to be believed:

“He had the honour of painting portraits of Queen Victoria and Princess Alice for the Duchess of Gloucester. Paintings of the Duke of Wellington and Prince Oscar of Sweden have also been executed by him”

It has to be said the article is riddled with errors, so the above claims must be treated with some scepticism. For example it says it was written in celebration of their 70^th wedding anniversary, in fact they had just reached their 60^th. It also states that he was born in Dorking, but it somehow managed to get the date of his birth absolutely correct! – considering William Usherwood’s predilection for misinformation. He also reached a very unusual ‘coming of age’ at 31!

 

 Dorking High Street, 1905

Newspaper Article on the Celebration of their 60^th wedding Anniversary in 1913

 

In the coming years he began to carry out ever increasing numbers of photographic commissions and by the time of the 1871 Census he gave his occupation as ‘Artist & Photographer’. He still continued the practice of giving as much incorrect information as possible to the ‘authorities’ – he now stated he was born in Chelsea and was only 48, when in fact he was 49. He was still living in Falkland Road, Dorking.

 

However no supporting contemporary documents have been found to support William Usherwood’s claim to Royal Patronage.

 

His family had also flourished in the years since Comet Donati’s disappearance; by the end of 1872 he and his wife Amelia had sired eleven children, 3 sons and eight daughters. As an aside, George Phillips Bond, Giovanni Battista Donati and Robert Carrington had not fared so well – they were all dead by 1875.

 

Sometime between 1882 and 1887, the family and his studio moved to Shrub House at No. 32, High Street, Dorking (the building is now demolished and is the site of a Sainsbury’s supermarket!) . He was still there at the time of the 1901 census.

 

By 1907, William had sold his photographic business to John W. Moorhouse and was enjoying his retirement living at Sefton Villa, in North Holmwood, Dorking. 

 

 

Post Office Directory Entry for William Usherwood, 1878

 

Three of William and Amelia’s children went on to become photographers - Charles William George Usherwood in Sheffield, Ernest Frank Usherwood in Nottingham and Egmont Augustus Usherwood in Norwich and later Bishop Auckland. Another child, Clarice Rose Ann Usherwood married a photographer (William Henry Wallace Tuck (1856 – c1910) and lived in Cheltenham.

 

As was common in those days, the younger daughters Florence and Rose (Rosina) stayed at home to look after their parents and probably never married.

 

William died on the 4^th November 1915 at his real age of 94, and Amelia died two years later in 1917.

 

Unidentified Portrait by William Usherwood, Artist & Photographer of Dorking

William Usherwood, Artist & Photographer of Dorking Business Card

 

Lost

 

From the evidence presented it appears that William Usherwood made a number of full size copies of the original photograph he took of Donati’s Comet; presumably these were contact prints onto either paper or other Collodion plates. There is no trace today of the Usherwood photograph that was sent to Harvard. Moreover, despite searches made by myself and other researchers in both England and America, neither the location of the original nor any of the copies has been found.

In fact, by the turn of the century, the Harvard copy was known to be lost. As Edward Singleton Holden, Director of the Lick Observatory wrote in 1897, referring to the print of Usherwood's photograph that Carrington sent to Bond:

 "Carrington's enclosed photograph is not now to be found, I believe. The photograph was unknown to Dr. De la Rue, apparently.... Both these photographs — the first ever made of comets — have remained unnoticed by all the historians of astronomical photography, up to this time, so far as I know.”

Before we finish our story of William Usherwood, one thing remains – to explain why the firm favourite George Bond fell at the winning post and other contenders such as Warren de La Rue were well beaten by the rank outsider from Dorking?

The answer lies in the famous phrase - ‘horses for courses’ – very appropriate given our equine racing analogy.

Looking back over these events which took place over a century and a half ago, we as photographic historians are fortunately blessed with both hindsight and the advantage of superior technical know how. If I were to have put money on the outcome of the ‘Donati Comet Stakes’ it would not have been on Bond or de La Rue, but on Usherwood. This is not because they were not capable; they were without doubt two of the greatest pioneers of Astrophotography. So why was my money on Usherwood?

George Bond and Warren de La Rue were scientists first and foremost who viewed Comets as objects to study, to Usherwood they were just another subject to Photograph. There is no evidence to suggest that William Usherwood was ever interested in Comets or in Astronomy. His photograph of Comet Donati was the only one he ever took of an Astronomical object.

In his report on the ‘Great Comet of 1858’ George Bond only made one comment on his photograph and that was to say it was no good. He dismissed it and went onto write the remaining 558 pages (less two lines) of his account. It was clear he had no interest in pursuing a race to be the first to photograph Donati’s Comet or indeed any other.

Warren de La Rue was to me a more likely contender to win than Bond. He was a thoroughbred Astrophotographer, who had won the Royal Astronomical Society’s Gold Medal in 1862 for his great contributions in this field.

So what went wrong?

Imaging Comets even with today’s sophisticated Astronomical CCD cameras and DSLRs (digital single lens reflex) is not an easy task; and is something that requires great care if the modern day Astrophotographer is to succeed. The most important consideration and the one that both Bond and de La Rue failed to heed – was to choose your equipment carefully. Having said that they could only use what they had at their disposal – and that is why they failed.

The well equipped modern day Astrophotographer has usually a number of different equipment configurations at his disposal. The choice of equipment for a particular target will vary depending upon the characteristics of the object. Furthermore the correct combination of both telescope and camera are requirements for success.

There are certain types of equipment he would never use to image say a large faint nebula, but which he would use to photograph a Planet. For example I would use a large format astronomical CCD (i.e. one with a 35mm size chip) and a telescope with a small focal ratio f7 or smaller to image a large faint nebula such as the iconic ‘Horse’s Head’ nebula in Orion, but never ever use it to image a Planet like Jupiter. For this I would use a telescope with a large f ratio say f20 or more and a Webcam to take a series of snapshot images and combine them to produce a single high quality shot.

Comets like planets move across the heavens faster than the stars. Comets are brightest when they are near to perihelion and they also move faster. The ‘Great Comets’ like Donati are also large and require a wide field of view. The use of a webcam is out of the question as they only capable of imaging objects with small fields of view, because of the limited size of their CCD chips.

In order to obtain a good image of a Comet it is necessary to use a telescope and a camera with a large field of view and a small focal ratio, which will enable short exposures to be taken which will capture all of a comet’s detail i.e. both its head and tail.

Edward Emerson Barnard the great American Astronomer used such a configuration to take some of the finest images of Comets in the years from 1892 to 1894.

Edward Emerson Barnard’s Photograph of Comet Brooks taken in 1894

 

But I hear you all say (well for those who have been watching the race anyway!) that Usherwood didn’t use a telescope! Quite right – he used the other configuration the modern day Astrophotographer would use - a fixed camera on a tripod with a low ‘fast’ focal ratio – a DSLR in our case and a Box Camera in his, specially adapted to develop wet Collodion Plates.

This option is quick to set up and is capable of being used at short notice when an object of interest appears and is needed to be captured quickly. It is also able to capture much wider fields of view than an astronomical CCD/telescope combination. It is my preferred configuration for imaging a Comet and is ideal for capturing the ‘perfect shot’. It must be remembered that the framing of a photograph and the background are important considerations, especially with a Comet and its ephemeral nature.

This was just the scenario that faced William Usherwood on Walton Common on the 27^th September 1858.

He was in the right place at the right time, but most important of all he used the right equipment. The churlish amongst you will say, that it was the only equipment he had! That may be true, but how many great achievements and events in history have been based on luck rather than judgement.

William Usherwood was unknown to the world when he photographed Donati’s Comet and a hundred fifty years later he is still unknown to all but a few. Perhaps more people will now give him his fifteen minutes of fame – the same time it probably took him to be the first person to photograph that most elusive and magnificent of all astronomical phenomena – a ‘Great Comet’.